new Ecoboost mustang a hit with the aftermarket?
- Thread starter donnyj08
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Well, I'm not sure now. Looking at the top diagram, it looks quite impressive and smooth flowing. Looking at the lower picture, it looks like packaging took top priority.
Yes, but it can still be Extrude Honed, and/or ported for at least some gains, albeit not like a properly engineered and thought out, inconel turbo header.
Well, I'm not sure now. Looking at the top diagram, it looks quite impressive and smooth flowing. Looking at the lower picture, it looks like packaging took top priority.
Yes, but it can still be Extrude Honed, and/or ported for at least some gains, albeit not like a properly engineered and thought out, inconel turbo header.
Likely the engineers did the best they could with the packaging and drivability requirements. This isn't a transverse FWD application, so moving the engine back to gain the necessary room isn't possible. Space is still limited by the fenderwells. If it's like other mass-market turbo engines, the intake is optimized for mid-range punch where most of the drivers use it most of the time. That powerband can be shifted a little bit through reflashing, but not much without new parts. Top-end screamers are great for track work, but stink for "fast" daily drivers where making holes in traffic takes priority over clipping apexes.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Top-end screamers are great for track work, but stink for "fast" daily drivers where making holes in traffic takes priority over clipping apexes.
Might that depend on more factors than just engine redline? Motorcycles often have extremely wide torque curves, and gobs of power from idle up to redline. I'd say that a car with a wide torque curve and a powerful engine is far more versatile than one biased just towards the top end, or one biased towards midrange only.
Cars with automatics and high redlines do their job properly, without "stinking". The McLaren 12c I recently drove was such an animal. As are most high performance cars.
I will agree that the Honda S2000, especially the 9000RPM 2.0L engine flavor, are unnecessarily biased towards the high RPM range. But, being light makes that car an awful lot of fun. My turbo S2000 is the 2.2L variety, has plenty of low-mid grunt and a really fun mid-top end.
Contrast that with an older Corvette that runs out of steam at 4500 RPM (which I find no fun at all) .
Top-end screamers are great for track work, but stink for "fast" daily drivers where making holes in traffic takes priority over clipping apexes.
Might that depend on more factors than just engine redline? Motorcycles often have extremely wide torque curves, and gobs of power from idle up to redline. I'd say that a car with a wide torque curve and a powerful engine is far more versatile than one biased just towards the top end, or one biased towards midrange only.
Cars with automatics and high redlines do their job properly, without "stinking". The McLaren 12c I recently drove was such an animal. As are most high performance cars.
I will agree that the Honda S2000, especially the 9000RPM 2.0L engine flavor, are unnecessarily biased towards the high RPM range. But, being light makes that car an awful lot of fun. My turbo S2000 is the 2.2L variety, has plenty of low-mid grunt and a really fun mid-top end.
Contrast that with an older Corvette that runs out of steam at 4500 RPM (which I find no fun at all) .
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Guys I've been thinking about the new mustang ecoboost. Not that I want to buy one per se, rather about how beautiful this platform could become in the tuning world.
I love boost in cars and I even liked the old SVO mustangs, however those cars never really found their way to popularity. I think today's market is going to be much more accepting to a turbo 4 cylinder mustang. I certainly know I'm excited about what the future may hold as far as what the aftermarket develops in the way of turbocharger upgrades and supporting modifications.
I still think Ford should shoe in a hopped up version of their 3.5l ecoboost into a mustang GT.
Thoughts!?
I really agree with the bolded above, but, depending on just how strong they built the i-4's bottom end, and just how much heft one can pare off of this new platform, the Ecoboost could be a GREAT power making engine choice.
But I will say this, with the sound of that flat plane crank 5.0, 4 valve per cylinder heads, and an IRS, I do NOT want to hear the words "low tech Detroit c**p" come out of the ricers'/import fanboyzz' mouths EVER again!!!
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Guys I've been thinking about the new mustang ecoboost. Not that I want to buy one per se, rather about how beautiful this platform could become in the tuning world.
I love boost in cars and I even liked the old SVO mustangs, however those cars never really found their way to popularity. I think today's market is going to be much more accepting to a turbo 4 cylinder mustang. I certainly know I'm excited about what the future may hold as far as what the aftermarket develops in the way of turbocharger upgrades and supporting modifications.
I still think Ford should shoe in a hopped up version of their 3.5l ecoboost into a mustang GT.
Thoughts!?
I really agree with the bolded above, but, depending on just how strong they built the i-4's bottom end, and just how much heft one can pare off of this new platform, the Ecoboost could be a GREAT power making engine choice.
But I will say this, with the sound of that flat plane crank 5.0, 4 valve per cylinder heads, and an IRS, I do NOT want to hear the words "low tech Detroit c**p" come out of the ricers'/import fanboyzz' mouths EVER again!!!
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
A 3.5L Ecoboost would be cool, but power output would be right up there with the 5.0 V8, which I'm sure Ford doesn't want. Put the Ecoboost V6 right in there with the 6.8L V10 for motors that would've been cool in the Mustang.
Not 'would', it's a done deal. The lineup...
I-4 Turbo
V6(base engine i believe)
V8
I think an I-4 ecoboost, along with a killer V8 or even a V10 would be great.
I-4 eco, hot V8 for a $40k-ish GT and a hot V10 for the saleen or whatever it is would be cool. Perhaps the V10 is too heavy though...
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
A 3.5L Ecoboost would be cool, but power output would be right up there with the 5.0 V8, which I'm sure Ford doesn't want. Put the Ecoboost V6 right in there with the 6.8L V10 for motors that would've been cool in the Mustang.
Not 'would', it's a done deal. The lineup...
I-4 Turbo
V6(base engine i believe)
V8
I think an I-4 ecoboost, along with a killer V8 or even a V10 would be great.
I-4 eco, hot V8 for a $40k-ish GT and a hot V10 for the saleen or whatever it is would be cool. Perhaps the V10 is too heavy though...
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
The new Corvette agrees with you. Great performance, great HP, excellent MPG. Compact, lightweight and simple engine. I've seen them run in the high 11's at near 120MPH.
I'm not at all sure it's going to be easy to out-do a well tuned American pushrod V8 such as the Chevy Small Block. Oh, it's possible, such as the 6 cylinder, 1500HP, turbocharged Supra engine. But, I don't think it can be done in a simple manner.
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
The new Corvette agrees with you. Great performance, great HP, excellent MPG. Compact, lightweight and simple engine. I've seen them run in the high 11's at near 120MPH.
I'm not at all sure it's going to be easy to out-do a well tuned American pushrod V8 such as the Chevy Small Block. Oh, it's possible, such as the 6 cylinder, 1500HP, turbocharged Supra engine. But, I don't think it can be done in a simple manner.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
Likewise. Nothing OHC even in the entire fleet!
Just ran with a 30 psi super boosted GTI the other day, he did VERY well until triple digits, just didn't have the legs to stay with my old girl...
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
Likewise. Nothing OHC even in the entire fleet!
Just ran with a 30 psi super boosted GTI the other day, he did VERY well until triple digits, just didn't have the legs to stay with my old girl...
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Top-end screamers are great for track work, but stink for "fast" daily drivers where making holes in traffic takes priority over clipping apexes.
Might that depend on more factors than just engine redline? Motorcycles often have extremely wide torque curves, and gobs of power from idle up to redline. I'd say that a car with a wide torque curve and a powerful engine is far more versatile than one biased just towards the top end, or one biased towards midrange only.
Cars with automatics and high redlines do their job properly, without "stinking". The McLaren 12c I recently drove was such an animal. As are most high performance cars.
I will agree that the Honda S2000, especially the 9000RPM 2.0L engine flavor, are unnecessarily biased towards the high RPM range. But, being light makes that car an awful lot of fun. My turbo S2000 is the 2.2L variety, has plenty of low-mid grunt and a really fun mid-top end.
Contrast that with an older Corvette that runs out of steam at 4500 RPM (which I find no fun at all) .
You're right, I did overlook modern transmissions in that equation. Having the right gear for every situation does indeed help.
I've lived with pushrod and OHC engines. Whatever drives the car forward. There are many ways to make power, and many adherents to each way.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Top-end screamers are great for track work, but stink for "fast" daily drivers where making holes in traffic takes priority over clipping apexes.
Might that depend on more factors than just engine redline? Motorcycles often have extremely wide torque curves, and gobs of power from idle up to redline. I'd say that a car with a wide torque curve and a powerful engine is far more versatile than one biased just towards the top end, or one biased towards midrange only.
Cars with automatics and high redlines do their job properly, without "stinking". The McLaren 12c I recently drove was such an animal. As are most high performance cars.
I will agree that the Honda S2000, especially the 9000RPM 2.0L engine flavor, are unnecessarily biased towards the high RPM range. But, being light makes that car an awful lot of fun. My turbo S2000 is the 2.2L variety, has plenty of low-mid grunt and a really fun mid-top end.
Contrast that with an older Corvette that runs out of steam at 4500 RPM (which I find no fun at all) .
You're right, I did overlook modern transmissions in that equation. Having the right gear for every situation does indeed help.
I've lived with pushrod and OHC engines. Whatever drives the car forward. There are many ways to make power, and many adherents to each way.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I'm not at all sure it's going to be easy to out-do a well tuned American pushrod V8 such as the Chevy Small Block. Oh, it's possible, such as the 6 cylinder, 1500HP, turbocharged Supra engine. But, I don't think it can be done in a simple manner.
Ironically, I've heard some alloy LSx enthusiasts call the (2JZ)GTE a 'low tech' engine due to it's heavy iron block.
(And yes, we all know it needs that to sustain it's rep of being able to handle that 50+ lbs. of boost some try to push through it
).
I'm not at all sure it's going to be easy to out-do a well tuned American pushrod V8 such as the Chevy Small Block. Oh, it's possible, such as the 6 cylinder, 1500HP, turbocharged Supra engine. But, I don't think it can be done in a simple manner.
Ironically, I've heard some alloy LSx enthusiasts call the (2JZ)GTE a 'low tech' engine due to it's heavy iron block.
(And yes, we all know it needs that to sustain it's rep of being able to handle that 50+ lbs. of boost some try to push through it
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
Likewise. Nothing OHC even in the entire fleet!
Just ran with a 30 psi super boosted GTI the other day, he did VERY well until triple digits, just didn't have the legs to stay with my old girl...
Love it!
I've got my hands into so many projects right now however I'm seriously considering ditching everything but the turbo capri and getting a snail bolted on to the front of my charger.
I'm going to pm you Steve. Pick your brain a bit
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I wear the "low-techness" of my pushrod engines like a badge of honor. The vast majority of the OHC ricer boys only get to see my tail lights receding in the distance.
Likewise. Nothing OHC even in the entire fleet!
Just ran with a 30 psi super boosted GTI the other day, he did VERY well until triple digits, just didn't have the legs to stay with my old girl...
Love it!
I've got my hands into so many projects right now however I'm seriously considering ditching everything but the turbo capri and getting a snail bolted on to the front of my charger.
I'm going to pm you Steve. Pick your brain a bit
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Got a coworker with a brand new 6 cyl Mustang. It can really get up and go.. can't imagine how it would be with the twin turbos.
The 2015 Mustang V6 makes 300 hp, 280 lb-ft.
My 1997 Mustang Cobra made 305 hp, 300 lb-ft
It's crazy where we've come where the base model is pretty much as fast as the top of the line not too long ago...
Got a coworker with a brand new 6 cyl Mustang. It can really get up and go.. can't imagine how it would be with the twin turbos.
The 2015 Mustang V6 makes 300 hp, 280 lb-ft.
My 1997 Mustang Cobra made 305 hp, 300 lb-ft
It's crazy where we've come where the base model is pretty much as fast as the top of the line not too long ago...
Originally Posted By: CT8
I don't see low tech at all with a push rod engine. I like the compact size .
Compact, light weight, and small size are the reason the new Vette has the lowest Center of Gravity ever measured by car and Driver. This includes a LOT of cars!
People get all excited about the marketing with twin turbos, 4 cams, tons of valves, etc. and sometimes forget the old pushrod motor...
I don't see low tech at all with a push rod engine. I like the compact size .
Compact, light weight, and small size are the reason the new Vette has the lowest Center of Gravity ever measured by car and Driver. This includes a LOT of cars!
People get all excited about the marketing with twin turbos, 4 cams, tons of valves, etc. and sometimes forget the old pushrod motor...
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Got a coworker with a brand new 6 cyl Mustang. It can really get up and go.. can't imagine how it would be with the twin turbos.
The 2015 Mustang V6 makes 300 hp, 280 lb-ft.
My 1997 Mustang Cobra made 305 hp, 300 lb-ft
It's crazy where we've come where the base model is pretty much as fast as the top of the line not too long ago...
The numbers obviously don't tell the entire story. The V6 Mustang still feels underpowered in daily driving, (especially on hills) due to lack of torque and tall gearing.
I don't care for the V6 Mustang at all. It's nothing, nothing, nothing, wow... throttle action is annoying.
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Got a coworker with a brand new 6 cyl Mustang. It can really get up and go.. can't imagine how it would be with the twin turbos.
The 2015 Mustang V6 makes 300 hp, 280 lb-ft.
My 1997 Mustang Cobra made 305 hp, 300 lb-ft
It's crazy where we've come where the base model is pretty much as fast as the top of the line not too long ago...
The numbers obviously don't tell the entire story. The V6 Mustang still feels underpowered in daily driving, (especially on hills) due to lack of torque and tall gearing.
I don't care for the V6 Mustang at all. It's nothing, nothing, nothing, wow... throttle action is annoying.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: CT8
I don't see low tech at all with a push rod engine. I like the compact size .
Compact, light weight, and small size are the reason the new Vette has the lowest Center of Gravity ever measured by car and Driver. This includes a LOT of cars!
People get all excited about the marketing with twin turbos, 4 cams, tons of valves, etc. and sometimes forget the old pushrod motor...
Hey, I did NOT say that I agree with the import only fanboyzz/ricers, I just was giving one of their statements of 'technical superiority' when they hated on domestics after getting roasted by them and their supposedly "low tech" engines/drivetrains.
Now, they have NOTHING to fall back on, and call "low tech" on, when they get decimated by one of these new Stangs. LOL
Originally Posted By: CT8
I don't see low tech at all with a push rod engine. I like the compact size .
Compact, light weight, and small size are the reason the new Vette has the lowest Center of Gravity ever measured by car and Driver. This includes a LOT of cars!
People get all excited about the marketing with twin turbos, 4 cams, tons of valves, etc. and sometimes forget the old pushrod motor...
Hey, I did NOT say that I agree with the import only fanboyzz/ricers, I just was giving one of their statements of 'technical superiority' when they hated on domestics after getting roasted by them and their supposedly "low tech" engines/drivetrains.
Now, they have NOTHING to fall back on, and call "low tech" on, when they get decimated by one of these new Stangs. LOL
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Cujet
The numbers obviously don't tell the entire story. The V6 Mustang still feels underpowered in daily driving, (especially on hills) due to lack of torque and tall gearing.
^^This. Although it has 305 HP on paper,to me they just feel really wimpy. My 222 HP V6 will stomp the holy [censored] out of one and leave it in the dust. The whole reason to have a domestic muscle car imo is to have a V8. The low end torque of a V8 muscle car is addicting!!
The numbers obviously don't tell the entire story. The V6 Mustang still feels underpowered in daily driving, (especially on hills) due to lack of torque and tall gearing.
^^This. Although it has 305 HP on paper,to me they just feel really wimpy. My 222 HP V6 will stomp the holy [censored] out of one and leave it in the dust. The whole reason to have a domestic muscle car imo is to have a V8. The low end torque of a V8 muscle car is addicting!!
I feel the same way, I don't know what gearing options are available, but the recent V6 mustangs I have driven had very tall gearing and felt like a dog compared to my older, lower HP G35 - which also does not feel particularly quick.
That being said, I would like to add a couple turbos to the G35 and make it an EcoBoost and partake in the fun.
That being said, I would like to add a couple turbos to the G35 and make it an EcoBoost and partake in the fun.
- Status
